A Win For Your 2nd Amendment Right

03/13/2007 12:41:46 PM · #52

Originally posted by "DrAchoo":

The fact is, Jason, there are very intelligent people out there who have the opposite opinion you do.

I agree, but I have yet to see any real historical documentation to support the opposing view. If someone would like to post any historical documents from the founding period that support the right of arms only for militia then I might consider it.

However, it is essentially an impossibility of the era for that meaning to be accepted. Guns were much more so tools back during that era. In fact, many people's bread and butter and deer & duck meat were derived from the use of guns.

To apply an interpretation that was historically impossible, whether it be by intelligent people or not - will find no acceptance from me.

Originally posted by "DrAchoo":

So I could care less about your "facts". It's all spin. If there really was fact, then all the smart people would be on one side now, wouldn't they?

No, I do not believe intelligence always necessitates right decisions or judgments. We have hearts and these can affect our interpretations.

Originally posted by "DrAchoo":

At the end of the day, constitution or not, I believe that having millions of guns in the country is a bad thing. Just personal opinion there. The constitution is not holy, inerrant scripture. Maybe it's wrong.

Now to me, this is by far a much more valid statement which I view as much more defensible.

No the Constitution is not inerrant. That said the Constitution can be ammended. To me, this is the real discussion and the only one that is valid.

However to do so, one must be extremely cautious. The 2nd Ammendment is probably the weakest member of the foundation. Removing it sets precedent for the removal of others. Namely freedom of speech, religion, and so on. Perhaps those freedoms are also wrong?

Laugh as you may, but I know some who would likely be inclined to believe they are wrong. There are even some individuals on DPC who I sometimes wonder if they believe freedom of religion is wrong and only atheism should be tolerated.

Originally posted by "Yanko":

What would stop someone from forming a militia "club" just to have the right to bear arms should the SCOTUS specifically rule that only militias may own guns?

Those who try to interpret the right to bear arms as militia only. Do so towards state militias only.

Originally posted by "crayon":

they'd still own our asses with their superior gears like tanks, rockets and bazookas, but a good point to ponder nonetheless, Ken.

Really? a great many empires both ancient and modern have lost numerous wars to unsuperior firepower. Look at Vietnam & even look at Iraq. In particular, your argument would necessitate that the American Revolution could not have succeeded.

We had vastly less firepower. However, many wars do not need total victory they need political victory. As was the case of both Vietnam and the American Revolution. In both cases superior or equivalent firepower was not necessary. What was necessary was enough firepower to cause continual harm and cost and dissuade politically the value of such a war.

Originally posted by "LoudDog":

my take on gun control: After you show me that you took the guns away from all the bad guys (AKA gun control) we can discuss taking my guns.

*lol* Point taken....

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":

Four words: Michigan Militia, Oklahoma City

Three words...

"No guns used!"

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":

If Dr. Achoo was wrong about the Constitution, then why are there amendments in the first place? If you would then presume that the amendments are themselves perfect, let me remind you of the 18th and 21st amendments, distinct evidence to the contrary.

Ammendments allowed for the addressing of both non-core and new changes. For example...nothing authorized the establishment of the Air Force in the Constitution. Of course not, as no air planes existed than. However, the understanding that the establishment of the army and navy for military defense it is accepted that the Air Force is also allowable.

The issue is not whether there can be change...but the great care and caution of such change. And the fact that in many cases popularist opinion should not be the motivation for change. (ie: alcohol prohibition, done in popularist opinion and later rescinded for being the abysmal nightmare it was)

Originally posted by "Flash":

However, those that believe that their personal safety from crime is the responsibility of the government or its agencies (read local police), should become familiar with various court rulings that specifically state the opposite.

They should also dial 911 sometime and see a) if the police even respond to the call b) if so, how long it takes. Then compare that to the average elapsed time of a violent crime. The end result is a realization that you are on your own for your safety.

Originally posted by "Flash":

For anyone choosing to be armed, then all associated responsibilities go with that decision, including proper training and adequate storage. Familiarization with "use of force" law should be mandatory.

Agreed....respect & responsibility combined with knowledge & awareness!

Originally posted by "DrAchoo":

I was under the distinct impression from the article that the last time the Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd amendment they considered it to be dealing with militias.

***

Some interesting thoughts:

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms." - James Madison

Those who propose that the 2nd A. only refers to state militias. And not the general armed populace from which any militia is to derive would be 25 times larger than the standing army.

Now, many point to the National Guard as the state miliatias. There are many reasons why the National Guard truly does not meet the requirements of a militia. There is too much direct control by the Federal Army. Furthermore, the National Guard is essentially a standing army at all times. A militia is not a standing army but an organization of the common citizens, only standing in time of internal conflict. That said, even if we were to consider the National Guard as the militia and the 2nd A. as pertaining only to state militias. We do not have the 25 to 1 ratio of able militia to standing army.

Even if you adhere to the 2nd A. = militia only. The National Guard is NOT a militia. A militia was called up from the people, with the people in the militia supplying their own arms. The National Guard members do not have their own arms. Only those requisitioned by the government as provided via the military.

Essentially, were the National Guard to stand as the militia against the standing army without the army's assistance it would stand as an unarmed militia.

If one accepts the National Guard as the replacement to the People's militia defense than it is time to be very afraid. We are defenseless. The National Guard has more in common with the standing military than it does with any called upon militia of the people.

Such a high ratio requirement leads this historical statement to support that the 25x is to be directed to the general populace who are bearing arms.

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

It is also interesting to note that the National Guard in being used for offense & foreign invasion no longer really a militia but now an actual branch of the military.

"Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state." - Noah Webster

Please note, that we have a failing in America. We think that state and country are two different things. When we say "The United States of America" we are identifying 50 distinct national states in a common union. The people have the right and the need to be able to stand up against any state. Be it the Federal state or an individual state.

More from Noah that points toward the individual as opposed to a state controlled military force.

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." - Noah Webster

Now, what was the purpose historically of these Ammendments...of the Bill or Rights? What spawned it? Anti-federalist concerns toward a strong federalist government.

Therefore, those ammendments were proposed as protections of the people's rights. It'd make little sense for the Anti-federalists to push for a right that gave more power to state/governmental organizations.

"Antifederalists supported the proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly-defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached and James Madison drafted what ultimately would become the United States Bill of Rights and that was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789."

A quote of reference from the near period.

The bill of rights, 1 W. and M, says Mr. Blackstone, (Vol. 1 p. 143,) secures to the subjects of England the right of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree. In the construction of these game laws it seems to be held, that no person who is not qualified according to law to kill game, hath any right to keep a gun in his house. Now, as no person, (except the game-keeper of a lord or lady of a manor) is admitted to be qualified to kill game, unless he has 100l. per annum, &c. it follows that no others can keep a gun for their defence; so that the whole nation are completely disarmed, and left at the mercy of the government, under the pretext of preserving the breed of hares and partridges, for the exclusive use of the independent country gentlemen. In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.[25] - George Tucker

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." - Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Joseph Story

Interesting to note that in this case the granting of full liberty to negros including recognition of their rights "to keep and carry arms wherever they went". I think this makes it clear as of 1856 that it was seen very much so as an individual right.

"In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (the "Dred Scott Decision"),[30] the Supreme Court indicated that: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union . . .the full liberty . . .to keep and carry arms wherever they went." This may indicate that the right to carry arms was considered to be universal for citizens of the United States, though it is not clear that the terms to 'carry arms' and to 'bear arms' were considered synonymous. The term "to keep arms" may have been considered distinctly different than to "carry arms". Both actions may have been considered to be protected for "citizens in any one State of the Union". These comments were obiter dicta (i.e., non-binding)."

Why would we determine "The People" to be just the militia and not the citizenry as in the rest of the Constitution? Maybe freedom of speech also belongs only to the militia?

"Yet, in a released Senate report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, and well known gun rights proponent, counters this belief by stating

They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" â�� apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms.

"When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men."[3
"

Just remember...."[in] 1680, King Charles II of England used the Militia Act to disarm his Whig opponents."

All quotes referenced here: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

03/13/2007 12:54:02 PM · #53

Originally posted by chimericvisions:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If Dr. Achoo was wrong about the Constitution, then why are there amendments in the first place? If you would then presume that the amendments are themselves perfect, let me remind you of the 18th and 21st amendments, distinct evidence to the contrary.

Notice, however, that all of the amendments excepting those two have been aimed at the clarification or expansion of existing clauses, or establishment of new rights, not using the constitution as the application of law to reduce them.

I will not go so far as to say the constitution is infallible, as it obviously contains omissions, but it is a holy document, of sorts, in that its entire purpose is to prevent the government from taking away rights that were considered by the "founding fathers" to be "god given".

My interpretation of the second amendment (like many) is that the literal wording is only part of it. The intent behind the amendment was that the people be able to protect themselves from each other and from the government as a whole. I believe that preventing private citizens from owning firearms is an infringement upon that amendment because it prevents both of those goals.

There are obviously issues with guns in the US, however those issues are not with the private citizen's ownership more than 99% of the time. They are with criminal organizations and individuals who flaunt the law to begin with.

You may consider the Constitution a holy document, I think many do. It is the framework for the United States and its government. What many people also fail to realize is that it is also a living document, hence the amendments and the process for adding them.

It's also impossible to really determine what the intent was behind the second amendment since none of the founding fathers are around to answer any inquiries about their intent. All that's left is the amendment itself and possibly some other documents written at the time. Regardless of their intent, there's also the fact that the world we live in today is likely so far beyond anything the scope of anything the founding fathers could have imagined, that the relevance of their intent is minute.

03/13/2007 01:02:55 PM · #54

Originally posted by "matthew":

Similarly, the fact that most of the world lives in a society where private gun ownership is prohibited or strictly limited without mayhem or a crime wave is testament to the fact that there are other ways of maintaining social order and controlling crime than arming the populace.

The mere fact that there have been seasons of such does not allow for a slippery slope argument that such will always persevere.

The fact that the removal of gun ownership plunged all of Europe into chaos in the 1940's is argument enough. One nation losing the means of it's people to protect itself from the government resulted in several continents plunged into war.

Originally posted by "matthew":

There are a lot of immigrants throughout Europe - and it is hard to see how Mexicans in the US cause a higher gun-death toll in the US than occurs in Mexico.

Funny, I keep reading about more and more violence in Europe related to immigration and ethnic tensions.

That said, I just posited that as one factor and not the universal factor, that contributes. My point being that merely comparing statistics without addressing all aspects of society, etc and labelling the reason for such crime as merely being due to the presence of guns is an inadequate addressing of the matter.

Remove every gun in the U.S. and leave all other societal conditions the same and I am quite sure we'd still be higher in violent crimes statistically.

Originally posted by "matthew":

The reason is that most high-gun ownership countries have high gun ownership but low gun-criminality because they have compulsory military service for everyone and some keep their ex-soldiers armed as a territorial force (eg the Swiss). Soldiers are taught about what weapons ownership means - like Flash said, understanding your responsibilities if armed is key.

I am actually going to agree with Matthew on this being in part the reason why nations with high levels of gun ownership but low crime exist.

I believe the instruction of responsibility, knowledge, respect and awareness of rights being of utmost importance. I think it is also furthered by the awareness that the individuals are not alone in the owning of such weapons therefore a deterrent exists as well.

Originally posted by "matthew":

I don't know what the answer is for the US - guns are so freely available, it is hard to see what steps could convincingly be taken to limit gun culture.

None....I learned this in high school. One of the students I went to school with was a runner for gun dealers. This was right around when the Brady Bill was passed. I asked him what effect it had and how difficult would it be to get a gun.

His response..."None really...if anything it's better for business. As for getting a gun. If you want a 9mm or .357 give me a day or two. A fully automatic, Uzi, etc. About a week. If you wanted a grenade launcher, machine gun or mortar it'd be a couple of months because my sources would want to do a background check on you."

So there is really no means to prevent criminals and murderers from having guns. One can point to the free availability of guns legally as being the supply. But that is not the case as neither Uzi's or grenade launchers are freely available to the public. But remain reasonably accessible to the criminals.

Originally posted by "matthew":

However, I think that a society with a more relaxed gun culture, where personal safety depended upon being armed, would be a fairly unpleasant place to live - I would find increased restriction of gun ownership very muh more attractive a proposition.

If I had even a reasonable assurance in my heart that the government and police would keep my family safe I would support your stance. My experiences have expressed to me that the odds of an external force such as the police keeping me and mine safe is so unlikely as to approach impossible.

Originally posted by "matthew":

It is up to Americans to decide whether they want to face the threat of gun violence, and be armed to oppose it, or to figure out some way so that the threat does not arise.

True...and as such no way has been provided to prevent it's arise that is viable. I support the right of being able to pack a .357 and send anyone trying to kill or rape my family to hell. And that is a very tough decision for me to make because of my belief in eternal matters. I weighed such carefully.

I long ago decided not to own a gun while I was single because I believe my soul secure that it is better to lose my life than damn another person. However, with a wife and a little daughter on the way. I feel obligated to keep them safe and believe it to be my husbandry duty. As such, I intend to purchase a firearm in the near future.

03/13/2007 01:08:53 PM · #55

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
Four words: Michigan Militia, Oklahoma City

Three words...

"No guns used!"

My point is that the Michigan Militia was organized, as an independent militia, the very type of organization you seem to support. They were also responsible to some degree for a heinous act of terrorism. Nichols and McVeigh may not have used guns to blow up the Murrah Building in OKC, but the Michigan were a very well armed organization and a dangerous presence.

Message edited by author 2007-03-13 13:09:18.

03/13/2007 01:14:36 PM · #56

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":

It's also impossible to really determine what the intent was behind the second amendment since none of the founding fathers are around to answer any inquiries about their intent.

I strongly disagree. I think historical comments are references are quite able to provide a determination. And I believe that those from that era do so strongly toward the support of the individual's right and the right of individuals in common.

I think the common dismissal via the quoted inability to determine the intent of founding fathers is liberal hogwash. Used to try to dissuade that which over-whelmingly opposes present modern liberal thinking.

It's nice to dismiss it and saw "we don't understand and we can't understand". But if that is to be the extent of it than I say let's dismiss the whole Constitution, and all laws from Federal down to the municipal. I'd rather take anarchy with a .357 than opinions to erode our rights away in such manner.

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":

Regardless of their intent, there's also the fact that the world we live in today is likely so far beyond anything the scope of anything the founding fathers could have imagined, that the relevance of their intent is minute.

I disagree. Our technology has advanced but our human nature has remained quite the same. Everything that plagues us today plagued us in the past excepting the technical means.

As such, I believe our founding fathers were intelligent men who well understood human nature. They wrote such in addressing humanity's nature not his technological achievement.

We can point to violent crime. However, regions and times past have had similar if not even higher violent crime even without the existance of guns. What is well known though is that dictatorship control has pretty much relied upon unarmed masses throughout history. The knowledge of this fact has not changed as of yet. Likely won't until someone creates some mind control device or drug.

Therefore, the words are wholly relevant today and in our situation. The question is always about security versus freedom. You see, the removal of all guns and imposition of a tyrannical system almost always results in less crime to those on the side of the system. While also resulting in a loss of freedom and very commonly the oppression and or death of those outside the system's favor.

Nazi Germany's crime and murder rates were fairly low, especially compared to beforehand. However, the result was 11 million indefensible people systematically eradicated and many more dead in the war that followed by the tyrannical regime.

Likewise, I fear that the removal of guns from the U.S. citizenry will within a few decades time result in a political dictatorship far beyond the criticisms some on the left & right like to throw towards our present government. It likely furthered by far greater outward conflict. Not mere police actions but true conquest...

No, leave us Americans with our guns. Less you want an America 100x more frightful & evil than you already think us to be.

03/13/2007 01:22:22 PM · #57

BTW...I want to comment regarding an argument some make (such as the ACLU) regarding that if the individual has the freedom to bear arms then there is nothing to prevent an individual from owning machine guns, tanks, cruise missiles, etc.

There is a difference between arms & artillery. Personal arms include rifles, swords, handguns. Ordinance & artillery such as machine guns, tanks, mortars, etc. do lie outside the personal arms.

Yes, technologically speaking there are some gray areas regarding machine pistols/rifles such as Uzis, M16's, AK-47. Personal weapons that blur the lines between what was a personal arm and what was commonly squad ordinance.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/13/2007 01:47:19 PM · #58

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
It's also impossible to really determine what the intent was behind the second amendment since none of the founding fathers are around to answer any inquiries about their intent.

I strongly disagree. I think historical comments are references are quite able to provide a determination. And I believe that those from that era do so strongly toward the support of the individual's right and the right of individuals in common.

I think the common dismissal via the quoted inability to determine the intent of founding fathers is liberal hogwash. Used to try to dissuade that which over-whelmingly opposes present modern liberal thinking.

It's nice to dismiss it and saw "we don't understand and we can't understand". But if that is to be the extent of it than I say let's dismiss the whole Constitution, and all laws from Federal down to the municipal. I'd rather take anarchy with a .357 than opinions to erode our rights away in such manner.

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
Regardless of their intent, there's also the fact that the world we live in today is likely so far beyond anything the scope of anything the founding fathers could have imagined, that the relevance of their intent is minute.

I disagree. Our technology has advanced but our human nature has remained quite the same. Everything that plagues us today plagued us in the past excepting the technical means.

As such, I believe our founding fathers were intelligent men who well understood human nature. They wrote such in addressing humanity's nature not his technological achievement.

We can point to violent crime. However, regions and times past have had similar if not even higher violent crime even without the existance of guns. What is well known though is that dictatorship control has pretty much relied upon unarmed masses throughout history. The knowledge of this fact has not changed as of yet. Likely won't until someone creates some mind control device or drug.

Therefore, the words are wholly relevant today and in our situation. The question is always about security versus freedom. You see, the removal of all guns and imposition of a tyrannical system almost always results in less crime to those on the side of the system. While also resulting in a loss of freedom and very commonly the oppression and or death of those outside the system's favor.

Nazi Germany's crime and murder rates were fairly low, especially compared to beforehand. However, the result was 11 million indefensible people systematically eradicated and many more dead in the war that followed by the tyrannical regime.

Likewise, I fear that the removal of guns from the U.S. citizenry will within a few decades time result in a political dictatorship far beyond the criticisms some on the left & right like to throw towards our present government. It likely furthered by far greater outward conflict. Not mere police actions but true conquest...

No, leave us Americans with our guns. Less you want an America 100x more frightful & evil than you already think us to be.

All you can do with documents etc. is infer their intent. You can't definitively answer what their thoughts and intentions were at the time.

As far as the understanding of human nature by the founding fathers, they were very much a product of their times and their understanding of human nature is very much colored by that fact. Many, if not all, of them were slave owners and regarded their slaves as less than equal. How would that play in today's world?

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

03/13/2007 02:37:10 PM · #59

Supreme court cases involving the issue of the second amendment and the rulings.

//www.davidkopel.com/2A/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm

"Among legal scholars, it is undisputed that the Supreme Court has said almost nothing about the Second Amendment. [FN1] This article suggests that the Court has not been so silent as the conventional wisdom suggests. While the meaning of the Supreme Court's leading Second Amendment case, the 1939 United States v. Miller [FN2] decision remains hotly disputed, the dispute about whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right can be pretty well settled by looking at the thirty-five other Supreme Court cases which quote, cite, or discuss the Second Amendment. These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments."

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/13/2007 02:56:34 PM · #60

Guns are outlawed in Mexico. How does Mexico's crime stats compare to the US? (honestly just curious, thay may well be lower)

03/13/2007 03:20:37 PM · #61

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":

All you can do with documents etc. is infer their intent. You can't definitively answer what their thoughts and intentions were at the time.

Then there is no point in having any written law. Let's just have present opinion of whoever is given authority.

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":

As far as the understanding of human nature by the founding fathers, they were very much a product of their times and their understanding of human nature is very much colored by that fact. Many, if not all, of them were slave owners and regarded their slaves as less than equal. How would that play in today's world?

It applies the same way then and today, in that there were questions regarding whether it was right or not. There were some who adhered to the belief of lower status. This is not gone from our world today. Women are treated as inferior in many parts of the world. Slavery is still prominent in regions of the world.

What continues? is the progression of respecting others or not. Changes occurred in our nation because the fundamentals of the concept of equality which is not always realized and applied to all but as it is understood - it is expanded.

Originally posted by "LoudDog":

Guns are outlawed in Mexico. How does Mexico's crime stats compare to the US? (honestly just curious, thay may well be lower)

There are places where the drug lords of Mexico constantly kill mayors and police. People in bondage to mafiaso drug lords. The good citizens have no defense in some regions.

Per Wikipedia: "Crime is among the most urgent concerns facing Mexico, as is the case for many other Latin American countries. Mexican drug trafficking rings play a major role in the flow of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana transiting between Latin America and the United States. Drug trafficking has led to corruption, which has had a deleterious effect on Mexico's democracy. Drug trafficking and organized crime have also been a major source of violent crime in Mexico. Mexico has experienced increasingly high crime rates, especially in major urban centers."
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Mexico

Interesting, it appears from the graph that murder with firearm is slightly less. But murder in general is 2-3x that of the U.S.

Also note that in Mexico the reporting of many crimes is less consistent than the U.S.

//www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

So I guess we can ban handguns and triple our murder rate.

Oh, and let's address the fact that a large percentage of our crime is drug related. 90% of cocaine sold in the U.S. originates from S. America ans is smuggled through Mexico. Mexico is also the largest supplier of marijuana and second largest source of heroin for the U.S. market. The majority of methaphetamine sold is also made in Mexico.

03/13/2007 04:31:17 PM · #62

Originally posted by theSaj:

The majority of methaphetamine sold is also made in Mexico.

It is true that until the 1990's most meth was manufactured on a relatively large scale in Mexico and the California desert.

Today, most of the meth is cooked up in portable labs or small labs set up in trailers, rental homes apartments, hotel rooms etc. The meth made in large scale facilities is more of a supplemental source since so much of it is now "homebrewed" for very little money.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/13/2007 04:33:46 PM · #63

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
All you can do with documents etc. is infer their intent. You can't definitively answer what their thoughts and intentions were at the time.

Then there is no point in having any written law. Let's just have present opinion of whoever is given authority.

I was not referring to the written law, I was referring to your assertion that somehow you could divine the thoughts and intentions of the founding fathers by sifting through their other writings that are NOT part of the written laws.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

03/13/2007 04:35:23 PM · #64

Originally posted by theSaj:

Oh, and let's address the fact that a large percentage of our crime is drug related. 90% of cocaine sold in the U.S. originates from S. America ans is smuggled through Mexico. Mexico is also the largest supplier of marijuana and second largest source of heroin for the U.S. market. The majority of methaphetamine sold is also made in Mexico.

and this is all because they don't have guns down there?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/13/2007 04:40:17 PM · #65

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
As far as the understanding of human nature by the founding fathers, they were very much a product of their times and their understanding of human nature is very much colored by that fact. Many, if not all, of them were slave owners and regarded their slaves as less than equal. How would that play in today's world?

It applies the same way then and today, in that there were questions regarding whether it was right or not. There were some who adhered to the belief of lower status. This is not gone from our world today. Women are treated as inferior in many parts of the world. Slavery is still prominent in regions of the world.

What continues? is the progression of respecting others or not. Changes occurred in our nation because the fundamentals of the concept of equality which is not always realized and applied to all but as it is understood - it is expanded.

The founding fathers, for the most part, believed in a slavery. I don't really care about what happens in the rest of the world, how would it go over if those values were applied to today's America and slavery was made legal again? Would you, following the values, intents and beliefs of the founding fathers, buy a slave?

genghis

Canon PowerShot Pro1

03/13/2007 05:12:56 PM · #66

Were any of the founding fathers women?
Did the founding fathers consider the opinions of women in political matters?

Chimericvisions, I'm starting to think you're right about the constitution being a holy document of sorts. It was written for men, by men, just like the bible.

edit to quote correct person (sorry Saj)

Message edited by author 2007-03-13 17:24:21.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

03/13/2007 05:15:47 PM · #67

Originally posted by theSaj:

Mexico is also the largest supplier of marijuana ...

Where do you get these facts? I could find nothing to support this. In fact, Wikipedia indicated that the largest source of marijuana is cultivated inside the US. (no source was given though)

This along with your crazy assertion that 90% of crime can be attributed to illegal aliens in certain cities just makes me listen to you less. You are gonna have to cite sources with "facts" like this.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/13/2007 05:17:21 PM · #68

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":

But how does one interpret the meaning of any law. And what is the point of laws if you can change their original meanings.

At the time of the Constitution a great many if not most U.S. citizens needed rifles to live and prosper. It is unlikely they intended to take such a right of ownership and make it only for those in a militia.

Originally posted by "DrAchoo":

and this is all because they don't have guns down there?

This is because the only ones who have guns are the criminals. Who also have most of the law enforcement and judges on the payroll. So essentially, it's a free killing zone for criminals and good citizens have no means of defense.

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":

Actually, quite a few had issues with it. I do not recall the Constitution anywhere authorizing it. It may not have forbidden it. Some, like John Adams opposed it.

Here are some insightful reads regarding slavery & the founding fathers.
//www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

//www.heritage.org/Research/AmericanFoundingandHistory/wp01.cfm

Even George Washington who did in fact own slaves was quite a different task master...

"In 1786, Washington wrote of slavery, "there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." He devised a plan to rent his lands and turn his slaves into paid laborers, and at the end of his presidency he quietly freed several of his own household slaves. In the end, he could take it no more and decreed in his will that his slaves would become free upon the death of his wife. The old and infirm were to be cared for while they lived, and the children were to be taught to read and write and trained in a useful skill until they were age 25. Washington's estate paid for this care until 1833."

In fact, many aspects of the Constitution aiding in the removing of slavery over time.

Frederick Douglass, for one, believed that the government created by the Constitution "was never, in its essence, anything but an anti-slavery government." Douglass was born into slavery in Maryland but escaped and eventually became a prominent spokesman for free blacks in the abolitionist movement. "Abolish slavery tomorrow, and not a sentence or syllable of the Constitution need be altered," he wrote in 1864:

Originally posted by "genghis":

Were any of the founding fathers women? Did the founding fathers consider the opinions of women in political matters?

First off, before you attribute to me that which I did not say. I never stated that I believe the Constitution to be a holy document.

Was the Constitution written by men, for men...perhaps. Was it made flexible enough to grow and include more. Yes! And it was a good foundation.

Many things were omitted but few things were excluded. This enabled the Constitution to apply more broadly as freedoms were increasingly gained.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/13/2007 05:28:30 PM · #69

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by theSaj:
Oh, and let's address the fact that a large percentage of our crime is drug related. 90% of cocaine sold in the U.S. originates from S. America ans is smuggled through Mexico. Mexico is also the largest supplier of marijuana and second largest source of heroin for the U.S. market. The majority of methaphetamine sold is also made in Mexico.

and this is all because they don't have guns down there?

Beats me, but people were comparing US crime stats with countries that banned guns and no one mentioned Mexico, so I asked.

Is crime in Japan or the other countries compared to the US in other posts lower just because they ban guns?

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/13/2007 05:30:15 PM · #70

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by theSaj:
Mexico is also the largest supplier of marijuana ...

Where do you get these facts? I could find nothing to support this. In fact, Wikipedia indicated that the largest source of marijuana is cultivated inside the US. (no source was given though)

Here ya go Doc!

"Not only is Mexico the largest exporter of heroin and marijuana to the U.S., they say, but 40% to 75% of the region's cocaine hopscotches its way north to the U.S. through Mexico. "The major traffickers in Mexico can't operate without the assistance of Mexican officials," asserts a senior Customs agent. "So we're focusing on the chief Mexican law- enforcement officials."

//www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966943-6,00.html

I know that is from '88 but I have found more and some .gov sites. I can post the links if you want.

Message edited by author 2007-03-13 17:31:26.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/13/2007 05:44:55 PM · #71

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by theSaj:
Mexico is also the largest supplier of marijuana ...

Where do you get these facts? I could find nothing to support this. In fact, Wikipedia indicated that the largest source of marijuana is cultivated inside the US. (no source was given though)

Here ya go Doc!

"Not only is Mexico the largest exporter of heroin and marijuana to the U.S., they say, but 40% to 75% of the region's cocaine hopscotches its way north to the U.S. through Mexico. "The major traffickers in Mexico can't operate without the assistance of Mexican officials," asserts a senior Customs agent. "So we're focusing on the chief Mexican law- enforcement officials."

//www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966943-6,00.html

I know that is from '88 but I have found more and some .gov sites. I can post the links if you want.

Yes, but you make an inference that is incorrect. Mexico may be the largest exporter of marijuana, but that does not mean they are the largest source. The largest source could be internal.

Now get me some stats about that illegal alien crime spree...

Message edited by author 2007-03-13 17:45:58.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/13/2007 05:53:33 PM · #72

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I have implied nothing on anything I was merely providing some info.

And I don't agree with the Saj on the illegal alien crime spree.

Here is some more from the DEA

"Marijuana

Marijuana is the most widely abused and most readily available illicit drug in the United States and is available in varying degrees in every state in the union. Although precise estimates for the source of marijuana consumed in the United States cannot be made, marijuana smuggled into the United States, whether grown in Mexico, Colombia, or Jamaica, accounts for a large share of the marijuana available in the United States. High potency marijuana also enters the country from Canada. However, based on eradication statistics, domestic production is increasing. In the United States, cannabis is mainly cultivated in remote locations and frequently on public lands.

Mexican-based traffickers, with extensive networks in the United States, control poly-drug smuggling and wholesale distribution from hub cities to retail markets throughout the country. Mexican marijuana primarily enters the United States through entry points along the Southwest Border. Multi-ton amounts are often smuggled in tractor-trailers"

//www.dea.gov/pubs/cngrtest/ct050603.htm

Message edited by author 2007-03-13 17:55:51.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/13/2007 06:11:19 PM · #73

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":

I was not referring to the written law, I was referring to your assertion that somehow you could divine the thoughts and intentions of the founding fathers by sifting through their other writings that are NOT part of the written laws.

But how does one interpret the meaning of any law. And what is the point of laws if you can change their original meanings.

At the time of the Constitution a great many if not most U.S. citizens needed rifles to live and prosper. It is unlikely they intended to take such a right of ownership and make it only for those in a militia.

You interpret a law by reading it, not by reading exterior facts into it.

Times change. How many of us honestly need a rifle to live and prosper? Do you hunt for food? Does your family depend on your marksmanship to eat?

Owning a rifle in order to feed your family is a very different issue than owning a handgun to kill another human.

Message edited by author 2007-03-13 18:13:44.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/13/2007 06:12:34 PM · #74

Nevermind.

Message edited by author 2007-03-13 18:13:40.